The plea of adverse possession is not available if the possession initially started lawfully, and the judgment of the criminal Court is inadmissible in evidence in civil Court.

S.K.Katriar, J.

1. The defendants first set are the appellants against a judgment of reversal. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.6.1998, passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Siwan, in title appeal No. 13 of 1992, Jagdish Tiwari V/s. Lalmuni Devi and Ors., whereby he has allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff and the defendants second set, and set aside the judgment and decree dated 9.4.1992, passed by the learned 2nd Munsif, Siwan, in title suit No. 101 of 1984, Jagdish Tiwari V/s. Rajpati Chaudhary and Ors. The learned trial Court had dismissed the suit which has been set aside by the impugned judgment and decreed the suit. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the plaint.

2. it arises out of a suit for declaration of title of the plaintiff and defendant 2nd set (respondent herein), and for confirmation of their possession over the suit land bearing plot No. 104. As per the plaint, Ram Ugrah Tiwari had four sons, namely, Sital Tiwari, Ramautar Tiwari, Muneshwar Tiwari and Deodut Tiwari. Sital Tiwari died leaving behind his two sons, Samsundar Tiwari and Nakched Tiwari. Shyam Sundar also died issueless living jointly with his full brother Nakched Tiwari who died leaving behind his sons who are plaintiffs and defendant No. 8. The property belonging to late Shyamsundar Tiwari is coming in possession of the plaintiff and defendant No. 6 (Ramautar Tiwari), full brother of Sital Tiwari who died leaving behind his son, Daroga Tiwari, Daroga Tiwari also died leaving behind his sons who are defendant Nos. 7 to 9. Thus the property belonging to Ramautar Tiwari is coming in possession of defendant Nos. 7 to 9. Deodut Tiwari also died leaving behind his two sons, namely, Bhagwati Tiwari and Pahwari Tiwari. Later on Bhagwati also died leaving behind his sons who are defendant Nos. 10 to 12. Muneshwar Tiwari, full brother of Sital Tiwari, had died leaving behind his two sons who are defendant Nos. 13 and 14 are coming in possession of the land belonging to their father, Muneshwar Tiwari. The said Sital Tiwari, Ramautar Tiwari, Deodut Tiwari, and Muneshwar Tiwari were ex-landlords of 16 Annas share with respect to khewat No. 1, tauzi No. 18990, Mauza Dharnichapar, P.S. Mairwa, District Siwan, who were living jointly with their heirs. The further case of the plaintiffs is that there was no partition amongst the four brothers who were living and cultivating their lands jointly.

3. According to the further case of the plaintiffs, khewat No. 1, R.S. khata No. 75, plot No. 104, having an area of 10 bighas and 7 dhurs was recorded in R.S. Khatian as Gairmazarua Malik land to which the ancestors of the plaintiff and defendant 2nd set had made culturable and were cultivating it for about 60 years. At the time of abolition of Zamindari and the returns with respect to the land of R.S. Plot No. 104 including other land submitted to the State by the plaintiff and defendant 2nd set, the State Government had fixed the rent in favour of the plaintiff and defendant 2nd set u/s. 5, 6 and 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. Since then the plaintiff and defendant 2nd set are paying rent to the State of Bihar and obtaining rent receipts regularly without any obstruction and hindrance.

3.1. According to the further case in the plaint, the contesting defendant first set in the year 1984 put 3 palani, Nad, Khop on a portion of the land B.S. Plot No. 104, which is situate continuous west of R.S. Plot No. 103. Out of a total area of plot No. 104, 2 bighas of land towards the north has been gifted to the Sewait of temple of Lord Shiva which is situate thereon and the Pujari and Sewait are maintaining the temple from the agricultural products of the lands to gifted.

3.2. Defendant 1st set dispossessed the plaintiff and defendants 2nd set from schedule No. I land on 20th April 1984 when the plaintiff was in service at Kalyani within the State of West Bengai. The plaintiff and defendant 2nd